Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

Table 7.24: Correlation error coefficients across product categories (cycle)
Correlations C<strong>of</strong>fee fruit juice s<strong>of</strong>t-drinks candy bars Potato chips pasta
C<strong>of</strong>fee 1
(81)
Fruit juice 0.21
(0.07, 48)
S<strong>of</strong>t-drinks 0.17
(0.11, 56)
Candy bars 0.08
(0.34, 29)
Potato chips 0.06
(0.40, 20)
Pasta -0.09
(0.31, 30)
1
(96)
0.27
(0.01, 80)
-0.01
(0.48, 30)
0.27
(0.04, 42)
-0.02
(0.45, 43)
1
(112)
0.2
(0.13, 34)
-0.04
(0.39, 47)
-0.04
(0.39, 47)
1
(41)
0.04
(0.43, 22)
-0.08
(0.37, 22)
1
(52)
0.18
(0.17, 31)
There are two significant correlations between the error terms, both positive. These are for
s<strong>of</strong>t drinks and fruit juice and for fruit juice and potato chips. Other error term pairs are not
significantly positively related and sometimes even negatively correlated. If deal proneness
would exist, it would manifest itself into a number <strong>of</strong> significant positive correlations
across the different product categories. As the results show, only two out <strong>of</strong> the fifteen
correlation coefficients are significantly positive. Therefore, deal proneness is not
observed.
In this chapter, we have empirically identified drivers <strong>of</strong> household promotion
response, therefore answering the first sub-question as stated in Chapter 1 using the first
step <strong>of</strong> the research approach as presented in Chapter 5. As a side-effect, the existence <strong>of</strong> a
deal proneness trait was empirically investigated using (in)consistencies in household
promotion response across different product categories. In the next chapter, we follow up
on the second step <strong>of</strong> the two-step approach followed, namely decomposing promotion
response into the sales promotion reaction mechanisms.
1
(54)
157